The deletion of the article broken thousands of links, which are not the result of sockpuppetry in any website. This article existed for years and all the material in it is encyclopedic. Lots of sites cite this article, that is now a dead link.
Luis150902 (
talk |
contribs)
22:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Endorse deletion. Though thinly attended it was well argued with no dissents so the decision was right. You disagree with it, but that is not grounds for overturning. There are only four incoming links, easily fixed, not thousands. What other sites do is not our concern, but anyone looking for information on the topic can look at the sources for the article, such as they were. How many other sites link to it is not a grounds for keeping it.--
JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds23:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Endorse- The discussion reached a workable consensus. The nomination in particular was extensive and well-argued. I do not see any reason why this needs to be overturned.
ReykYO!10:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Endorse, per lack of valid reasoning. Number of incoming links has never been a reason to undelete anything, nor has article longevity.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind18:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment If this is "basically the same" as
Binary combinatory logic, as specified in the deletion nomination, then why can't it be redirected there, which would solve the external links issue as well? There were no redirect votes, but there were only two votes for delete plus the nominator, so I wouldn't say there is clear consensus not to redirect. Would doing so require a deletion review, or can someone be
WP:BOLD and do it now?
Smartyllama (
talk)
22:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)reply
The deletion of the article broken thousands of links, which are not the result of sockpuppetry in any website. This article existed for years and all the material in it is encyclopedic. Lots of sites cite this article, that is now a dead link.
Luis150902 (
talk |
contribs)
22:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Endorse deletion. Though thinly attended it was well argued with no dissents so the decision was right. You disagree with it, but that is not grounds for overturning. There are only four incoming links, easily fixed, not thousands. What other sites do is not our concern, but anyone looking for information on the topic can look at the sources for the article, such as they were. How many other sites link to it is not a grounds for keeping it.--
JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds23:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Endorse- The discussion reached a workable consensus. The nomination in particular was extensive and well-argued. I do not see any reason why this needs to be overturned.
ReykYO!10:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)reply
Endorse, per lack of valid reasoning. Number of incoming links has never been a reason to undelete anything, nor has article longevity.
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind18:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment If this is "basically the same" as
Binary combinatory logic, as specified in the deletion nomination, then why can't it be redirected there, which would solve the external links issue as well? There were no redirect votes, but there were only two votes for delete plus the nominator, so I wouldn't say there is clear consensus not to redirect. Would doing so require a deletion review, or can someone be
WP:BOLD and do it now?
Smartyllama (
talk)
22:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)reply